1. Double Dealing with Mittens
(From the legal filings in the Bridge Bank lawsuit, and from R.L. Harrington)
In December of 2007, Bridge Bank loaned Garlock’s 839 Mitten LLC $7,385,000 to buy two adjacent
office buildings at 819-839 Mitten Road, Burlingame. The facilities had a variety of tenants including
two superb, profitable lessees – the Federal Aviation Administration in one building and the cardio-
vascular research and diagnostic services firm Berkeley HeartLab in the other. Following his usual
M.O., Garlock managed to ruin the property and set up his investors for total loss in about 18 months.
Unconventional machinations begin
On April 9, 2008, Garlock split the property and the loan. The Bank lent $4,900,000 to a new Garlock
LLC, Mitten TIC, to pay down the original Mitten loan by $4,372,500 and for half a million to hold at
Bridge Bank as collateral. Garlock was of course restructuring to sell pieces of the property to investors
as tenants in common (TICs) behind the Bank's back. Odd that the bank didn't catch on, given the
nature of the transaction and the name of the new entity.
Simultaneously, 839 Mitten LLC conveyed its interest in the building at 839 Mitten Road to 839 Mitten
TIC LLC, and Bridge Bank partially reconveyed the first Mitten Deed of Trust solely as to the 839
Mitten Road property. Thus 839 Mitten LLC owned the building at 831 Mitten Road (with the FAA
tenant and others), and 839 Mitten TIC LLC owned 839 Mitten Road (Berkeley HeartLab as tenant).
A day later, 839 Mitten LLC borrowed $1 million from investor Richard Harrington at a promised
12% annual return plus an additional 8% annual return upon buyout of the investor's position.
Harrington was led to believe that he owned 50% of the LLC. No deed of any kind was recorded. He
received only three monthly payments, then no more.
The day after that, on April 11, 2008, 839 Mitten LLC conveyed 37% interest in the 831 Mitten Road
building to the LLC of investor Jina Farzinpour for $1,485,000. For her Garlock recorded a grant deed.
On April 14, 2008, 839 Mitten and 839 Mitten TIC executed a note to repay plaintiff Woodside Priority
LLC $1,625,00 in borrowed funds, presumably originally loaned to help buy the Mitten complex. This
note was secured by the 839 Mitten Road building.
After only a month, Garlock told Andrew Litton, the manager of Woodside Priority, that he and the
Mitten LLCs could not meet their current financial obligations. Woodside agreed to accept a grant deed
in lieu of foreclosure, entitling an assignment of all assets of 839 Mitten TIC, LLC, including money for
tenant improvements, but not including any liabilities such as the note to Bridge Bank.
On July 3, 2008, Garlock conveyed 24.81% in the 831 Mitten building to a married couple named
Swanberg. Thus Farzinpour owned 37% and the Swanbergs about 25%, and Harrington owned half the
LLC that had conveyed the deeds, while Woodside Priority owned the building at 839 Mitten Road.
All these transfers occurred without notification of Bridge Bank, whose deed of trust prohibited them.
A year later, about June, 2009, the bank finally discovered the forbidden sales and other irregularities.
Here's how Garlock explained the aftermath to his investor Harrington in a handwritten letter of 2010.

2. To give you another example of the state of the market, here is what happened to our Mitten project.
The tenant is the U.S. Government.
The bank made a $3.1 million loan, a 50% loan to value. The bank renewed the loan four times,
renewed it again in May, 2009. It found a technical, non financial default, called the loan six weeks
after renewing it and started collecting the rents. It raised the interest rate to 12% and charged a
$155,000 fee for us being in default.
The bank then refused to advance any funds to operate the building unless we put in a receiver. Five
leases were coming due, including the US Government, so I refused. The bank started foreclosure. I
successfully negotiated all the leases. The bank refused to let us sign them. I ran out of cash for
expenses. The bank still would not advance funds. The lights were turned off. The tenants paid for trash
pick up, which the bank refused to pay for. The tenants picked up the electrical after I posted a deposit.
I bankrupted the property. [He means the LLC that owned the building. Of course he did not inform his
investors.]
The judge said this was not a bankruptcy [sic] issue, but a civil issue. He allowed a foreclosure to take
place. The bank wanted $3.4 million at the foreclosure sale. No one bid.
I have ten more stories like this!
Hey Bill, there are way more than ten such stories, and it's not the banks' fault.
The mean old bank's foreclosure Complaint says it took this action because of three violations of its
deed of trust which Garlock had signed:
1) Garlock's LLC had transferred partial title to multiple investors;
2) The bank found two pending lawsuits against the Garlocks, the loan's Guarantors; and
3) Garlock's LLC “839 Mitten” hadn’t delivered the required quarterly financial statements.
Clearly Garlock was not going to cooperate with the bank in any way, and the judge refused to appoint
a receiver, so the bankers had but one choice left to gain control. Unfortunately it came at the cost of the
entire investment of several innocent parties.
The paths of the money that found its way out of Mitten investors' hands and presumably into the
labyrinth of Garlock's bank accounts (more than 120 of them by one tally) have yet to be tracked.
San Mateo County Superior Court, Case No. CIV 487964, filed Sept. 17, 2009. Bridge Bank, National
Association vs. 839 Mitten, LLC; William F. Garlock; Rosemarie A. Garlock; et al.
San Mateo County Superior Court, Case No. CIV 504948, filed April 18, 2011. Richard L. Harrington
vs. William F. Garlock.